Enthusiasms and expostulations, by Glenn Kenny

January 21, 2011

Reader poll

"Joe Swanberg's kind of become your straw man," My Lovely Wife commented to me this evening. "Well I wish you'd told me you felt that way before I wrote a 2,200-word oblique review of Uncle Kent," I responded. On the other hand, I get where she's coming from, and part of me wants to resist participating in what could become the film-blog variation on the recent and ongoing Sarah Palin thing. As you may recall, Palin was recently taken to task by some for her incendiary rhetoric, Instapundit Glenn Reynolds called a "blood libel" on conservatives, Palin picked up that ball and ran with it, certain people found it repulsive, and Reynolds and James Taranto and a bunch of other people doubled down and laughed that Palin drives liberal dummies crazy, and why are they so obsessed? This really doesn't strike me as all that different than the doubling down that Richard Brody is doing with respect to Swanberg over at his blog, and don't even get me started on Craig Keller. Part of me is very definitely reluctant to engage—you wanna spend your money on Joe Swanberg movies, go the hell ahead, but the day I see a new one that I like seems far off indeed, so why should I even bother?—but on the other hand, I DID just write a bunch about Uncle Kent, and even had a picture scanned for the piece.

So I'm gonna put it to you, dear readers: should we all just ignore Swanberg the way I'm ignoring Sundance on this blog, or do you wanna see my piece? I'm going to bed now, because I'm very sleepy; I'll close voting (register your yes or no, with rationale, in the comments section) at midnight tomorrow night. Thanks as ever!

UPDATE: I see that as of 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time on Saturday morning, January 22, 2011, that voting is running pretty evenly for and against posting, but I'm noticing a fair number of conditionals—DO post if the piece is about the movie and not the guy, that sort of thing. SO maybe a little clarification is in order. The piece is written in the form of a letter to its co-writer and lead performer, Kent Osborne (and I SWEAR I had this idea before I saw that Craig Keller posted his praise of Uncle Kent in the form of a letter to its director Joe Swanberg), in large part because, watching the film, I was rather struck by how similar the character Kent's life situation in that film resembled my own when I had reached the parlous age of 40 in the late '90s. The post will even contain a picture of myself and my (now deceased) cat that bears a slight resemblance to the shot of Osborne in bed with his own cat. My response to the film, therefore, could be said to be kind of complex, because I did see a vestige of a version of myself in it. Like Richard Brody, I believe that Uncle Kent is "sincere" (up to a point), and that it shows "honesty" (up to a point). I do not, however, believe it is any "good," and when I read Keller approvingly quoting Swanberg saying "I hope this is a movie that people feel like popping into the DVD player once in a while and just hanging out with" and then Keller says, yes, it is that kind of movie, I think, "These people are out of their minds."

I hope this information might help you along in making a more informed decision with respect to your vote. Thanks again!

FINAL UPDATE: "Enough with the drama," reader "Gus" comments. What are you, my mother? Actually, no; my mother is much nicer, and less brusque. But point taken. Publish, and be damned, as the saying goes. The post is above. It contains "spoilers." Um, enjoy.

Your oblique review, assuming it's not just a 2200-word spittle-flecked anger-moan, will add something new to the current pot (also spittle-flecked, but spittle of the ecstatic variety, from what I've read), so--

I say yes--I'd love to read it.

Love him or hate him or meh him, Swanberg is, at least, a more worthwhile subject than Palin.

You've already written it, so post, please. I have to assume it's your critical review of the thing, not some misinformed bile piece rapidly put together just to counter Brody's and Keller's praise and/or piss'em off (certainly 'and'). Which would be amusing, but far too undemanding to concoct; I haven't seen anything yet by the Swanburguese (note how easy!), and already feel qualified to write a passable facsimile.

As the commenter who "looks down his nose" at Swanberg's Criterion list, I say post the thing because you've written it and then stop discussing Swanberg altogether until you have something new to say about him. I've engaged in my slagging amongst friends since I saw Hannah Takes The Stairs and at some point I had to stop. I have nothing to new to say about him because there isn't much to say about him to begin with. I sense the same feeling in you, so burn this last one off and then move on to something that actually excites you, whether it be positive or negative.

As I imagine your review/piece is not just flippant derisory remarks but is actually one of substance and thought I too add my voice to those wishing you to publish the piece, if only to counteract the parodic characterization Richard Brody has posted on his blog, the language and thought of praise provided there as generalizing and broad stroked as those he lampoons, offering a Hilary Putnam-like alternate earth to explain the Swanberg reception.*

It is a world in which a dislike of Swanberg’s films is only explained by “settled sensibilities”, a pigheadedness and aesthetic conservatism in which the viewer fails to properly liberate him or herself from the accepted conventions which they have been duped into believing; of predictable responses more indicative of, and concerned with perpetuating, a hive mind than proffering free thought which would invariably “recognize” the worth of Swanberg’s work if not caught up in blindly parroting the canon; where the worst thing to be is a cinema-studies professor as any academic inclination is characterized as a fearful retreat from some far more authentic mode of engagement (oh boy) and scholarly thought or work is irreconcilable with artistic creation; critiques only coming from backward looking, idyllic dreamers of an agreed upon past, withdrawing from the world being the only possible explanation for finding Swanberg’s work lacking. If only these conformists could be as free as those who recognize.

I stumble wildly over the Garrel comparison but perhaps that is because I have sheltered myself in DVD’s and books of the past, shielding my staid and swallowed aesthetics from the howling winds of the new new present which if I were only so confident as to crack a window open to would lead me from my heated home, ensconced in the safely known, and deliver me to this realer world which I have tried so hard to keep out.

Alas, Glenn, please do throw another log on the fire of canon conformity for I feel a draft coming on.

*The newyorker.com website is all mangled re: comments. I tried to post a comment on the “Uncle Kent” piece and failed and a reply of mine on the Albert Ayler post (recommending a little internet ingenuity be used to find the volumes of “In Florence”, Don Ayler’s records as leader, as they are neglected and wonderful albums) has since disappeared.

I'd like to read it. I only vaguely enjoyed HANNAH... [and really just for Gerwig's perfomance (i.e. she was totally naked in several scenes)] and have found everything else I've read about JSwan to make my skin crawl. Those artporns he made for IFC were loooood-a-criss. So put me down as an emphatic "yea."

@Kent Jones: I understand, of course, why the title would make you uneasy; but I hope that you'll find compensation in the emotional payoff the title yields. People may debate Swanberg's camera style (which seems to me skillful and, at the very least, unobjectionable), but it's hard for me to fathom that the scene that gives the film its title wouldn't hit a viewer in the (metaphorical) gut.

(parenthesis for this parenthetical tangent---Donald Ayler's recordings are unfortunately long out of print, so far as I can tell ((I am not even sure they have ever been released on cd, that increasingly irrelevant format)), and limited to a 3-lp set "In Florence" from 1981 which is truly excellent stuff ((and two tracks on the Revenent Holy Ghost box)). As the lp's are dang near impossible to find and absurdly pricey when they do show up one must suggest the usual internet alleyways and shadowed corners to find these very worthwhile recordings.)

"As if anyone outside a very small number of the world's population has any idea who Joe Swanberg is."

Well, yerce, but they're 'the right people', innit. Though I would like Swanberg to get such a fan-following that my screener of 'Hannah' will accrue value, like old promo CDs used to. (Monetary, I mean. Reasonably sure it's not going to accrue value of any other kind, and it doesn't deserve the landfill-space.) I'm glad Greta Gerwig survived it.

Maybe, you, me and everyone we know would be better served if you post a link to a review of Donald Ayler's recorded output? I realize you might have to actually, you know, write it. So, I guess, do that, THEN post a link. I'll wait...